By Harmony Daws 14 Dec 10

A Talmudic scholar is in charge of whether the internet remains a free and open forum and whether big internet providers can shuttle unpopular sites into the bandwidth slow lane. This does not surprise. Our last article defends Helen Thomas’ maligned but truthful (flac / mp3) statements about Jewish power and dominance in America. Here is further evidence.On December 21, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski will be meeting with the four other politically appointed commissioners to vote on his Dec. 1 proposal for “net neutrality.” Many Americans immediately cried foul about the proposal, knowing it will endanger free speech and falls far short of any real guarantee of equal access for all viewpoints.

As the Jewish Forward reports, power over government regulation of the internet “which affects the flow of information and culture, the growth of the economy and the future of communications, education and democracy itself — rests largely in the hands of Julius Genachowski, a 48-year-old Jew from Long Island with knowledge of Talmud and an appointment to one of the most critical policy posts in Washington.” Forward tells us Genachowski is “proud and open about the cultural component of his Judaism” and was raised by Lithuanian parents who fled Germany. Genochowski’s brother is president of the Hebrew Academy of Long Beach, and his cousin is a rabbi and CEO of the Orthodox Union’s Worldwide Kosher Division. His great uncle even served in the Israeli Knesset. Genachowski attended Orthodox day school as a boy and attended a Talmudic academy for high school, winning the Talmud award. After graduation, he spent a year studying Gemara (Talmudic commentary) in Jerusalem. Today, Forward says, he attends a conservative synagogue weekly.

Genochowski’s Talmudic streak was evident in his recent proposal on regulating the internet. In a speech December 1, Genachowski outlined what he called the “rules of the road” for regulation. They included an obligation of transparency for ISPs, the prohibition of ISPs from blocking content, gutting “unreasonable discrimination” on the flow of internet traffic, and allowing providers to charge different prices for different amounts of broadband use and different speeds.

The chairman’s proposal has been called a “pretend net neutrality” scheme that threatens internet free speech and democracy. The chairman claims to oppose letting (or making) big companies give faster service to some websites over others. But Save the Internet Coalition and others analyze that his proposal would let big companies split the internet into fast and slow lanes.

Genachowski and the FCC may give AT&T, Comcast and other big companies some real incentive to do just that. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps—who will cast a deciding vote on Dec. 21—recently preached to a Columbia University journalism audience that “forcing openness” (controlling media content) is so important that “we should just do it and get it over with.”

As most news followers know, Copps this week argued for a “community values test” in order for media outlets to stay licensed. Copps wants to require media to hire ethnic quotas, and he also wants media to have to check with the government about their upcoming programs. (It stands to reason that if they refuse, the FCC can pressure their internet providers to put them in the slow lane or otherwise penalize them.) Copps and others certainly want FCC regulation to go in the direction of content supervision.

He told the BBC, "We are not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue, we're not producing as much news as we did five, 10 years, 15 years ago and we have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country.”

Wait, he said “we” aren’t producing news for “our citizens?” I don’t remember the Founding Fathers writing “direct news media” into the jobs for the state or federal government.

Copps’ words prompted Congressman Joe Barton to demand, “I hope ... that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume.” Barton and my readers should know that this is exactly what Copps and other powerful information appointees do want. Copps responded to Barton’s letter by saying he is not in favor of a reinstated Fairness Doctrine, but he does want diversity of media; and that’s exactly why he wants more regulation—“shorter license renewal periods, more detailed reporting requirements, and more specific public interest obligations for broadcasters.” Copps claims this is within the boundaries set by the Communications Act of 1934 which created the FCC.

Five—just five!—commissioners appointed by the President (not the American people) run the Federal Communications Commission for five-year terms. They are tasked with regulating interstate and international communications by all types of media: TV, satellite, cable, wire and radio. This gives them tremendous potential power to squash free speech on the airwaves and online. As political appointees, they are not even as accountable to Americans as elected officials. This means that freedom of speech via modern media—which is the foundation and sustainment of our democracy—is in a very dangerous position.

Cass Sunstein and Shepherding American Minds

Like Genachowski, another politically appointed Jew with great power in this arena is Cass Sunstein, who works as Obama’s “information czar.” He administrates the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He has publicly stated his desire for a reformulation of the First Amendment so it is no longer seen as supporting a “free marketplace of ideas.” In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, Sunstein declares that government should regulate media so as to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” In 2008, Sunstein advocated criminalizing conspiracy theories. He suggests, "Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

With incredible boldness, Sunstein has declared his desire that websites be forced to post the opposing viewpoint from their own. Of course, it is unlikely that leftist anti-white sites like Racialicious.com will be forced to publish the views of white supremacists! No, it is politically incorrect views that will be forced to provide a platform for the opposition. Sunstein, like so many supremacist Jews driven bring “tikkun olam” (to repair) the Gentile world, feels that Americans shouldn’t decide what media to imbibe. He is worried about “the growing power of consumers to “filter” what they see.” He fears that conservative Americans could stop exposing themselves and their children to liberal propaganda against the civilization built by white Christian males and their devout, stay-at-home wives.

Sunstein complains in a 2001 Boston Review column: “As a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in a process of “personalization” that limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing.” Oh, horrors. To Sunstein, it’s a bad thing that I can select classical music and soft Hawaiian love songs as my music of choice and only read news about the government. In his world, I should definitely be exposed to death metal and ESPN updates. More importantly, I should be unable to select media sources with which I agree—at least, if they are conservative, Christian or only white.

(Hmm, that brings up a paradox. Sunstein wants “diversity” on the internet, but he and other liberal Jews don’t seem to care much about diversity among the selectors of diversity. They aren’t exactly crying out for more evangelical Christians appointed by Obama! They aren’t afraid that Jews are unfairly overrepresented, being present in the US Senate at six and a half times the extent of their presence in the general population.)

In a heterogeneous society, such a system [a “well-functioning system of free expression”] requires something other than free, or publicly unrestricted, individual choices. On the contrary, it imposes two distinctive requirements. First, people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unanticipated encounters, involving topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find irritating, are central to democracy and even to freedom itself. Second, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a more difficult time addressing social problems and understanding one another.

Sunstein reasons that the government’s job is to keep public spaces open for all kinds of expression. Parks have to be open for speeches and protests even if the neighbors want peace and quiet. In the same way, websites are public spaces that must host diverse viewpoints. He seems to ignore the fact that websites, like books, are unique creations of their author. They are not public; they are private. If a person only wants to read Ann Coulter, that doesn’t mean Coulter should be forced to print Al Franken on every second page! But Sunstein thinks that should happen on the internet. Heaven forbid people be allowed to keep their cherished beliefs and surround themselves with like-minded thinkers. At least, not if they’re conservative, religious “fundamentalists” or otherwise an intellectual threat to the Jewish agenda for America.

This Jewish commissioner is deeply worried about “group polarization,” in which blacks tend to watch certain TV shows and whites another; this allegedly fractures social groups in a negative way. Sunstein sounds awfully like social engineers who dream of a golden brown society where the heterogenic uniqueness of various religious, ethnic and social groups has been watered down into one deliciously moldable mass. In North Korea—the opposite end of the spectrum from American freedoms—that has certainly happened. No one can think for himself. Everyone looks and lives the same, imbibing exactly the same government radio blared from public speakers, watching the same government-run TV shows, consuming the selection of “diversity” that is sanctioned by the greatest “information czar” of all, Kim Jung-Il.

Sunstein frets, “If the public is balkanized, and if different groups design their own preferred communications packages, the consequence will be further balkanization, as group members move one another toward more extreme points in line with their initial tendencies.” Human nature being what it is, he may be right. But governmentcontrol is no solution.

If you want to know what happens when government runs the media, watch National Geographic’s documentary on North Korea. It streams on Netflix. Seriously, watch it. Government control of media has never led to greater diversityof available viewpoints. That is, of course, because government is much much smaller and less diverse than the population and also because government tends to be corrupt. In the case of the American government, we have a third problem: Our government and traditional media are largely run by intelligent, ambitious, and committed activist Jews who desire to undermine white Christian society (link to past article). The Talmud on Genochowski’s bedside table teaches that Gentiles and especially Christians run society counter to God’s will; Jews must rule them and thus pave the way for the coming of the true messiah (anti-Christ). The Christians’ Messiah is an evil impostor, and Gentiles themselves are hopelessly and intrinsically inferior to the Chosen Race. They are relentlessly and irrationally “anti-Semitic,” and their animalistic passions must be controlled by Jewish Noahide laws.

All Americans should be tremendously concerned that Talmudic Jews are running our information universe—just as Israelis would have reason to worry if a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian were in charge of their media world. These two identities are fundamentally opposed. Unfortunately, only Jews seem aware of that fact. Only one of the fighters knows he is in the ring. The other is oblivious that a fight is even going on.

“More than 1.9 million Americans have expressed support for Net Neutrality at Congress and the FCC. They want control over the Internet to remain in the hands of the people who use it every day. Please stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all.”

It is very important that all lovers of freedom trumpet the fact that federal Jewish appointees are attempting to take away our free speech. It could well be that these Jewish conspirators, fearing that Jews could receive blame for a very unpopular FCC initiative, might decide the country and internet are not quite ripe for takeover and the potential anti-Jewish backlash is not worth the risk.